The Distrusting Attitude

Originally posted by FabianFnas
There were nothing before this simulation began. Every parameters in every point of the universe was initially set at t=0, or at the very first point of Planck time. But in this scenario there is no Universe as we see it. Our concousness is only a product of the simulation, nothing more.

But this big simulating computer resides in a real universe, with ...[text shortened]... real Programmer.

Do I really believe in this? No. But this is the Spiritual Forum, isn't it?

And maybe quantum mechanics are the programmer's way of dealing with a limited machine precision. 😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh ye foxy Gota, and I was ready for a kill😵


But why my friend you consider that the spiritualism of the individual allows irrational thoughts? Whenever the tools of the spiritualist are Science and Philosophy, his opinions can be quite well justified;

😵

Science and religion can never be mixed.
If they can, we must either change the definition of 'Religion' or 'Science'.

Originally posted by Palynka
And maybe quantum mechanics are the programmer's way of dealing with a limited machine precision. 😵

Ah, you mean, if we find any regularities in the quantum foam, then we can be certain of that the Programmer is somewhat lazy...? 🙂

Originally posted by josephw
God is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.

We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.

The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault.

Distrust is a symptom of sin. Sin is the result of disavowing God.

To trust God one must acknowledge one's flawed state and seek the remedy. Only God can effect t ...[text shortened]... change in the condition of the human heart.

Only then will one begin to learn to trust God.

I'm sold. Can I have some Koolaid now?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Science and religion can never be mixed.
If they can, we must either change the definition of 'Religion' or 'Science'.

Agreed.

But any propositional truth claim made by any religion is subject to valid critique by logic. And any propositional truth claim made about the nature of the cosmos is subject to valid critique by science. Religion cannot simply exempt itself from reason and empiricism while making such claims.

Religion can, however, be considered to be more symbolic and aesthetic in nature. The symbols, myths, stories, metaphors, allegories (whether or not based on historical events) can both lend insight into the existential condition and enrich how we live.

Religions might be thought of as artful presentations of philosophical themes, existential questions. And one artful presentation might be “exegeted” via any number of philosophical perspectives or hermeneutical approaches. Or one might take a more contemplative approach. (My non-exclusivist view is showing here.)

Originally posted by vistesd
Agreed.

But any propositional truth claim made by any religion is subject to valid critique by logic. And any propositional truth claim made about the nature of the cosmos is subject to valid critique by science. Religion cannot simply exempt itself from reason and empiricism while making such claims.

Religion can, however, be considered to be more ...[text shortened]... es. Or one might take a more contemplative approach. (My non-exclusivist view is showing here.)

That goes for all religions, not only for one in particular.
Religion is embedded in all cultures, even the ateistic ones, because of its origin, and history. Therefore religion is not evil, per se, but may be used in an evil way. Like "I'm right and you're wrong, and therefore you must die!"

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That goes for all religions, not only for one in particular.
Religion is embedded in all cultures, even the ateistic ones, because of its origin, and history. Therefore religion is not evil, per se, but may be used in an evil way. Like "I'm right and you're wrong, and therefore you must die!"

It seems to me that inner knowledge, ie evaluation of the mind and awareness, are producing spiritualism inside a good philosopher; when the individual twists and/ or misunderstands the spiritualism, the result is the birth of a "religion"
😵

Originally posted by FabianFnas
That goes for all religions, not only for one in particular.
Religion is embedded in all cultures, even the ateistic ones, because of its origin, and history. Therefore religion is not evil, per se, but may be used in an evil way. Like "I'm right and you're wrong, and therefore you must die!"

That goes for all religions, not only for one in particular.

Exactly.

Originally posted by black beetle
It seems to me that inner knowledge, ie evaluation of the mind and awareness, are producing spiritualism inside a good philosopher; when the individual twists and/ or misunderstands the spiritualism, the result is the birth of a "religion"
😵

Well, "religion" need not be a pejorative term. I probably tend to define it more broadly than you have here (though I have not always). That is, I would not necessarily equate "religion" with "exclusivism", which seems to be what you're describing here.

In a sense, I suppose I was offering what might be a counter-definition of religion...

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, "religion" need not be a pejorative term. I probably tend to define it more broadly than you have here (though I have not always). That is, I would not necessarily equate "religion" with "exclusivism", which seems to be what you're describing here.

In a sense, I suppose I was offering what might be a counter-definition of religion...

No;

I said that "religion" teaches the "truth", pretends that it frees the people, and pretends that throught it the believer will taste his divine nature;

No religion😵